Wetlands

Clemente Cancela:
They taught us one way of doing business, but we did it in a completely different way. They told us that oil and mining guaranteed development, but they didn't mention that they were destroying our planet. They showed us a polluting and nefarious textile industry, but we found ethical alternatives for the environment and the people involved. What was supposedly normal never represented us, and neither did our interviewees.

That's why we invite you to be part of Atípico, a podcast that focuses on the causes that matter and that touches our identity.

Rewind Effect

Enrique Viale
He has total impunity because you, Clemente, and now we go outside and break a car window. That's a crime of damage. It's wrong, we shouldn't do it. And maybe we'll go to jail, and we'll be in jail for a while. You burn 1 million hectares of wetlands and there's no penalty whatsoever.

Clemente Cancela
According to a report by the Global Ecological Footprint Network of Argentina, the country has reached the limit of natural resources generated for this year. This organization seeks to raise awareness and acts as a global indicator of the rate at which we are consuming our planet. Fires, droughts, floods, pollution—everything we do impacts the place where we live.

Wetlands are areas of immense value, not least because of their critical role in mitigating global warming. However, despite this, they are among the most damaged ecosystems. For now, the only solution we have is to generate a real change in our way of life. But what does this change entail? How can we achieve a habitable future?

In this episode, I'm going to talk with Enrique Viale, an environmental lawyer, and Sebastián Martínez Ledesma, an activist with the Multisectoral Wetlands Network, about what we can do to achieve real change. Let's begin. Well, Sebastián, Enrique, thank you for being here for this conversation. I want to ask you a very basic question, but I'd also like everyone to understand it: what is a wetland?

Enrique Viale
Well, thank you so much for the invitation. We're very, very, very happy to be here and chat a bit about such an important topic. Wetlands are ecosystems where water predominates, but that's not their only characteristic. There's a connection between land and water. But, of course, water is key. They are very important ecosystems that cover 21% of Argentina's territory.

It's a huge amount, and they're related to feeding rivers, purifying water, providing jobs, and giving life. They are the most important ecosystems for human life, for the life of the planet.

Clemente Cancela
Given how important wetlands are, the first thing I have to assume is that they're protected in some way. So I ask you, are they protected in any way?

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
Well, good morning. Thank you for the invitation. And we're here precisely because they aren't protected. Wetland ecosystems are fundamental to the development of communities. Consider that the vast majority of the population of Argentina lives around wetlands or depends fundamentally on the benefits they provide, whether it's water, air, or ecosystem services—not just the provision of building materials, medicine, and cultural values.

Living in an environment that shapes who we are, right? So it's a good thing. We're here to advocate for a wetlands law, to highlight the importance of these territories for the well-being of our communities.

Clemente Cancela
When we think about wetlands not being protected, the first thing that comes to mind is that they aren't protected for some particular reason, and I feel that reason is spurious. So I'd like to ask you what happens while wetlands are unprotected? What happens to wetlands, and what has been happening lately?

Enrique Viale
Well, the major environmental laws we've pursued or promoted have always had some lobby behind them that didn't want them to pass. The 2008 Forest Law had agribusiness very, very much against it; that law generated a huge dispute. The 2010 Glaciers Law had the megamining lobby, the large-scale mining companies that wanted and still want to exploit areas on or under glaciers.

Well, the Wetlands Law, the National Wetlands Law, the bill promoted by more than 300 organizations, has been in the works for over ten years, but we haven't been able to pass it yet. Why? Because it has a triple lobby behind it. That is, unlike soy, which only has three lobby groups, agribusiness is behind it because it wants to develop and cultivate wetlands by destroying them, raising livestock, and in some cases, growing soy, genetically modified soy, or monoculture crops.

It has large-scale mining because, especially in the mountain range near Las Vegas, the areas where mining, metal extraction, and other activities are taking place are wetlands, as is the lithium mining area. This is important: lithium is often said to be extracted from high-altitude wetlands, but no, those enormous salt flats are high-altitude wetlands. But it also highlights the real estate speculation that has wreaked havoc in recent decades, with rampant development and overdevelopment.

This wordplay is built on the destruction of wetlands. Then they sell it to you as a return to these gated communities they're building, they sell it to you as a return to nature, and what they had to do was destroy nature above all else.

Clemente Cancela
Okay, so stop, I'll brake, I'll ask you there, we're going in again. The dichotomy between progress versus environmentalism is a false dichotomy, right?

Enrique Viale
Absolutely false. We've been debating this for years, especially in Latin America. This is very important, where poverty maps coincide with maps of environmental degradation. So, isn't it true that to achieve more progress we have to destroy nature? On the contrary, that makes us poorer, especially the most vulnerable sectors of the population.

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
If this explains why the model of poor development is always so good, where territories and common goods are destroyed in favor of economic interests, leaving desolation and neglect for the vast majority of the communities that inhabit those territories.

Clemente Cancela
I'm interested in what you said about destroying communities, because generally when these things are discussed, those who aren't interested frame it as environmentalism, ecology, whatever you want to call it, and think about it in terms of animals, land, water. But they don't think about the community, they don't think about the human being in particular. And I have the feeling, or rather the certainty, that it's also important for the cultural heritage of a lot of communities that are essentially there for, well, for humans, for the people.

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
If the exacerbation of this productive model, which is portrayed as fundamental to the development of the well-being of the economy and communities, actually generates the exacerbation of poverty, social differences, the accumulation of land and power, and economic interests to the detriment of the vast majority, then that is what we see.

That's why we say, we need to protect the territories, we need to change the ways of producing.

Enrique Viale
It's important to know this. Argentina is completely deregulated in environmental terms. We have some of the most heavily planted areas on the planet, for example, with genetically modified soybeans—24 million hectares, proportionally to other land areas—and we are the country that uses the most agrochemicals per capita. We also have large-scale mining operations; in the Andes Mountains, we have several large-scale mining projects, and we have Vaca Muerte with fracking, hydraulic fracturing, and hundreds of wells.

When that technique is prohibited in much of the world—France, England, Bulgaria, several states, the United States—or is it only legalized here? Even so, half, more than half, of the kids are poor.

Clemente Cancela
We live in a country divided, if you will, monopolized by two models of the country or two political forces that are the most relevant in terms of popularity. And generally speaking, the impression we have is that they tend to clash on everything. So, what I would like to ask you is what the attitude and position of these two political forces is regarding the Wetlands Law.

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
My feeling and my experience in this is that there's no real division. There's a consensus to continue supporting these development models and any alternative control mechanisms over these forms of production. And well, it's clear that the fact that a wetlands bill has been passed four times by different governments since 2008 shows an interest in pushing through a watered-down version of a project—a project that takes a well-researched and agreed-upon proposal from organizations, is quickly taken and submitted. It's given a vote as fast as three months, compared to ten years of struggle, projects, and progress on wetlands. Well, that gives a clear indication of the political interests behind it all. Enrique Viale. This is similar to what some people are writing about in a 2014 book, aptly titled "Bad Development." There we developed an idea that originated with Maricela, which speaks of the commodities consensus, not like in Latin America where there's a kind of tacit consensus where left and right passively accept the role of bearers of nature as if it were destiny and beyond question. All consensus is beyond question, not the Washington Consensus. The consensuses have been seen as existing in society, in quotes, and anyone who questions them is considered crazy, backward, primitive. What are they telling us? Constantly ridiculing new ideas, etc. Or canceling them, or not, as is the current trend, as young people are doing now, trying to cancel them constantly. No, that's unfeasible, not what they're proposing. The truth is that this model, the consequences, are plain to see. I'm not just talking about economic terms, but that needs to be said. Not everything is the same, not in terms of redistribution. Progressive movements in Latin America have had a fight against poverty that is much more interesting than neoliberalism. That needs to be said, it's not the same, not exactly the same, but it is the same. The relationship they have with production models, even less so in Argentina, because in Bolivia at least there was some discussion about oil and mining revenues, even though the extractive model wasn't even discussed in Argentina, not even that. All the mining laws are from the 1990s. The worst neoliberal era, and not a single comma has been changed, I mean the consensus. It's very difficult, but it's essential to do it. We have to break with it. It's a great battle of meanings. Socio-environmentalism or the eco-social debate.

Clemente Cancela
I wouldn't want us to delve into the wetlands law itself right now, because what comes to mind when I think about the wetlands law and the path it has taken—which obviously includes many obstacles, like roadblocks—is that those who supported the law and continue to support it are growing in number; we are becoming more numerous. And I think there's something interesting there, at least it's given me a glimmer of hope regarding how things started and where we are now. But we can certainly begin to retrace that path. I would love for us to start talking about the initial experiences and how far we've come. Enrique Viale Bueno, first we need to explain why it's important to have a national wetlands law and not just a law for Entre Ríos, or another on emissions, or something else entirely. First, we have to go back to the 1994 constitutional reform, which established a new type of regulation called the minimum budget laws for environmental protection. We called them "budgets," not because it's about money, but because they are minimum standards, and that's what they should have been called. Yes, these are national laws that establish minimum standards applicable throughout the territory. The Forest Law applies throughout the province. They can create laws to complement the more protective ones, but never less than the law itself. The process is the same, and that's why we now have dozens of laws regarding minimum budgets, environmental protection, or minimum standards. Wetlands don't recognize borders or administrations. "I'm in Entre Ríos now." "No, I'm getting electricity now, so I'll move." "No, that's clear." So you need a national law that protects them, and you also need a national inventory. It's about counting them where they are. The first step to protecting something is knowing it. So we need to know how many we have and where they are located. There are studies from CONICET by many researchers, but we need to be able to coordinate them at the national level. And that's where the idea comes from: a national law that is very scientifically sound. The best scientists in wetland studies are behind this project. The first representatives and senators who drafted the initial bill back in 2008 did so with the help of scientists. Then a citizen-led process began, starting to think about what this was all about. It took several years, from 2008 to 2013, when Rubén Giustiniani, a much-loved senator from Santa Fe, took it up, achieved initial approval in the lower house, and then got the Senate to approve it.

Clemente Cancela
What's holding you back? There are a lot of people thinking about it from almost ten years ago, a lot of people. I mean, not to mention 14 years ago, 2008, but it speaks to me. I know that's what they did then. I'm not saying it was a victory because it didn't end up being one, but it's almost a victory, right? Enrique Viale: Of course, of course. And then he dies. You know we need both sanctions. We need the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies to send him to a drawer. There come those fancy drawers that he... well, he must have been in a drawer that's probably still there because nobody took it out. Then 2016, I mean, then it continues. Solana came along, dear Pino. I was Pino's advisor at that time, you don't know, I saw it, I saw it live, in person, I saw the lobbying, I saw it in the halls of Congress, the agribusiness lobby, the lobbying, the mega-mining lobby. And then comes the real estate speculation trying to sabotage Pino's momentum at all costs. But Pino was already over 80 years old. He had a long life behind him, six bullets in his body, for speaking his mind. And I also saw how he swept everything aside to get another preliminary approval. 2016. That was even more hard-fought than in 2013, which somewhat surprised him. He's not so surprised now. You wouldn't believe the lobbying they did; they even infiltrated different branches of the government, like the Federal Environmental Council. Just like now, they got involved there and made sure it passed. A state agency issued a resolution against it, a national law, a crazy thing from the Senate, which are supposed to be the true representatives of the provinces. What's happening now? Well, it was a real mess. It swept him away one night, at midnight, we got preliminary approval, we went out to celebrate, but then it goes to the Chamber of Deputies and it's the same story, it's not even discussed, not even addressed. I mean, there's no debate in the Chamber of Deputies. They put it in a drawer. Throwing the key into a wetland is key.

Clemente Cancela
It doesn't even go to committee, it's not even... Enrique Viale. Not even to committee, but it goes to a drawer in the Committee and from there it will go. They discuss it. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Both times in the Chamber of Deputies, and I can assure you that it was people from all parties who lobbied to prevent it from passing in the Chamber of Deputies both times. So, the trajectory is good. And now we are again with a project already supported by more than 300 organizations and that has scientific and social consensus, and which has just been passed. It was presented again because Leonardo Grosso, a deputy who is president of the Natural Resources Committee, had already done so, but we are again now in 2022 trying to at least get it discussed in committee. And now they invented a new project, which they also did with forests and glaciers. The same strategy, that is, they make a very bad, regressive project.

Clemente Cancela
It seems to me that there are those who are fighting for the wetlands law in the Chamber, in the Senate, as well as in the Chamber of Deputies, within that framework. They are less alone than before, and there is much greater involvement than ten years ago. I don't know if you perceive it this way, but I have the feeling that both you, Enrique, with what you do, with the books I've written, with your activity on social media, also in the press, plus you, Sebastián, from the Multisectoral group, are doing work that is constantly growing.

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
Yes, fortunately, it's growing. The international landscape is expanding, setting the standard for where we stand today and highlighting the urgency with which we must act. And in that sense, there's a growing awareness and even greater participation. We need more commitment from all of society, a greater understanding of the urgency, the importance, and the crucial role of citizen participation in this. That's why we're taking to the streets to demand a wetlands law, to change these production methods, and to enact laws that support a productive transition so we can say, "Okay, there's an alternative for change," but this needs to be supported by the government. Enrique Viale: There is a commitment, especially from the province of Buenos Aires, and Buenos Aires has a debt to the environment, beyond individual behavior, etc. I think we need more commitment to take to the streets, to demand greater ethical action, and we need that. The wetlands law needs its wetlands. Make it happen.

Clemente Cancela
When the law was first introduced in 2008, it raised awareness among many people, and also, how many wetlands are we losing? Because I understand that we continue to lose them. More and more are being lost, and it's a process that won't stop unless it's enacted into law.

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
Well, with a law, we would have more tools to curb these encroachments on these valuable territories. It's difficult to quantify how many hectares, how many wetlands, without an inventory like the one I mentioned here, we wouldn't know what wetlands we have, how many, where they are located, what type, and what their characteristics are. That's why it's fundamental, because if we don't know what we have, once these territories have been encroached upon, there's no going back. One of the ideas within the project is that there be some kind of restoration or conservation effort to return these territories to their best natural condition. But well, I don't know, in the Delta since 2020, more than 1 million hectares have been destroyed. The fires were devastating; we experienced them firsthand. That's why we exploded; we realized what was happening, a terrible ecocide, and as I mentioned here, large-scale destruction. We, from Rosario, having the Paraná River in front of us and having a direct relationship with the wetlands and the islands makes us value things differently, it makes us feel closer, and that's something very important that we have to realize: that this idea of ​​living urban life, of thinking about the world within a city, within a confined space, as if it were the only thing that exists in the world, and in reality we have an outside world, and it is that outside world that we depend on to live and to...

Clemente Cancela
And what happens when that outside is burning? When you live in Rosario and wake up to smoke every day? What's it like?

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
That? You open your eyes in the room and there's smoke. It's not like you see smoke outside like it's from a barbecue. The city is so thick you can't see 100 meters away. The air is completely unbreathable. Toxic levels are three times higher than tolerable air quality levels. It's worse than living in the most polluted Techint city. Sometimes there is. Enrique Viale Something very important, very concrete, is the impact on human health of the destruction of moisture and the burning of wetlands today, especially in the watershed. I mean, it's not just a landscape issue. Besides, hundreds of thousands of animals are also dying.

Clemente Cancela
I don't know what the Multisectoral is.

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
The Multisectoral Group is a space that originated in Rosario, specifically at the Rosario-Victoria Bridge, in response to the fires and ecocide that were occurring. It's a space where different political, civic, and environmental organizations participate, many of whom have been meeting there for a long time. Our main focus is to denounce these issues and demonstrate in ways that differ from conventional methods, aiming to create a unique perspective, raise awareness, and reach people differently, while also generating political influence.

Clemente Cancela
Well, the last thing I want to ask those of you listening is why it's necessary to get involved and how we can get involved. Enrique Viale: It's fundamental to discuss, debate, and question the common sense imposed by this consensus of being an exporter and nature. A bit like what we were talking about before. For that, we need more and more people doing it. The great socio-environmental victories in Latin America had to do with many people in the streets, always peacefully questioning things. Environmentalism. It's peaceful, but energetic, strong in the streets. That's why it's key to get involved and question things on social media. It's good, but it's not enough. It's not enough to just post a tweet, although it has to be done, it has to be done, and we shouldn't be afraid of it. We shouldn't be afraid to question. Look, secondly, at the struggle for—add realities—the struggle almost for real survival. Wetlands sustain life and work in Argentina.

Clemente Cancela
It's good to get involved. Enrique Viale: It's great, great. It changes your life, it changes your life for the better, it gives real life meaning.

Sebastián Martínez Ledesma
Well, yes, obviously it's good and necessary. And as I was saying here, it doesn't quite give us a clear direction and it doesn't offer us this possibility of challenging power. We often want to change the country, we want to change policies, we discuss things, but without a concrete place, without being able to truly channel all that anger, all that frustration. And I think that from the perspective of environmental activism, from the ground up, moving away from thinking about the city and getting involved with the land, understanding it, gives us real value and makes us defend it and helps us seek a different path.

Clemente Cancela
Thank you, Enrique and Sebastián, for this conversation. This was something special. A podcast produced by Patagonia that champions causes that matter and touches on our identity. We hope it has inspired you to help us save the planet.